Category: Uncategorized

In Chris Macdonald’s blog (canadianbussiness.ca), he explains how Target and McDonalds dropped egg supplier Sparboe Farms after concerns of the company’s egg production. Macdonald states that this decision has bring up two points. First, explains that it is difficult to say what is ethical or what is just being productive. He then explains that there are extremes on both spectrums of ethics in the business world but a business most cut the line somewhere. Second, Macdonald explains how McDonalds had a middle-man (Cargill Inc.) between them and Sparboe. Then he argues that there must be supply chain ethics by a company keeping their suppliers if they are ethical, but a company shouldn’t be responsible, if they are unaware, if their supplier is being ethical. Macdonald finishes by stating that a company can be considered ethical and unethical based on their supplier’s ethics if they are aware of the suppliers operation.

I agree with Macdonald’s opinion here. I think that a company with unethical suppliers is being unethical and vise-versa. I also agree that a company can not be in charge of  their suppliers ethics but that a company can the be the “bigger person” by not working with unethical suppliers to keep their supply chain ethical.

Source: Eggs, Ethics and Supply-chain Accountability

Apple’s supply chain is the reason why it does so well. Its ability to innovate and produce as one company has made it to where it is. As we all know Apple makes and sells in product in one whole system. They innovate by finding cheaper ways to operate. For example they wanted to have a green light turn one when the webcam is on, the issue was that it’s impossible to shine light through mental. Then they discovered a laser system that poked very small holes in the metal to have the light shine threw. Innovations like these allow Apple to prosper in its market. Its supply chain stays within the company for the most part and when it uses outside resources it plans in advance so it is completely in charge of the outside resourceThey use their large revenue to pay for large spaces in crates to ship that force other companies in the market to have to wait for Apple first. Things like this make Apple be able to have a higher control of the market. Finally, Apple’s retail stores give it the leading edge in supply chains by being able to track sales with ease. I think the way Apple controls everything with in its supply chain has made such a strong leader in the innovating technology market.

Article: Apple’s Supply-Chain Secret? Hoard Lasers

Japanese based company, Olympus is unlikely to shut down even though falling shares prices depict that it could. Olympus’s core medical equipment business is keeping it alive. The company’s shares have drop four-fifths of their value since the firing British chief executive. The chief executive was fired for alleged irregular accounting.  It could now face many fines along with its massive debt. Shareholders are trying to prevent Olympus from becoming delisted. If Olympus becomes delisted shares will still be able to be traded, just at a lower value. The alleged issues have greatly reduced the value of the company. Thus, Olympus is roughly 75% market shares and costumers are now more likely to sell stock because of accounting glitches. However, the biggest shareholders are holding a meeting to consider a new board of representatives for the company. This could change the company and save it in the long run. Shareholders need not to panic but can worry about the loss of value Olympus shares could loose because of the fines and debt.

Olympus shareholders should try to sell their stock as soon as possible if worried about depreciating value. The only difficulty will be trying to find buyers, because of the diminishing self-image.

Medical equipment business boosts Olympus’s odds

Netflix Inc., as we may all know, is an online DVD rental and streaming company that started from new innovations and took many risks. After being fined for late fees for renting a movie, Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph decided to start the company. They both had a background in new technology. When they first started, they rented DVDs like a normal rental store but online and had no late fees. In 1999, Netflix started the subscription plan. The first year of subscriptions they still made a lost of 29.8 million with a revenue of only 5 million. Netflix grew substantially once they started using a new technology called CineMax. CineMax enables costumers to rate the movies and showed rental trends. After the innovation of CineMax, Netflix started to offer a $19.99 per month option that allowed unlimited movie rentals with a max of three out at a time with shipping included. In December 2000, Netflix continued to grow by signing agreements with Warner Home Videos and Columbia Tri-Star. This increased its recognition and Netflix’s quantity of movies. After 2001 the company was still be held down by losses. Then in March of 2002, Netflix opened to IPO, once it reached 500,000 subscribers. It sold 5.5 million shares in late may and raised $82.5 million, way more than projected.  This helped cover 14.1 million in debt and increase publicity. Also Netflix had started having regional distribution centers, with the shares they decided to add more regional centers by the end of 2003. By the end of 2002 Netflix Inc. showed doubled revenue from the past year to 153.8 million and just 1.56 million in losses. By the end 2003 it had reached over 1 million subscribers doubling in less then a year. Netflix Inc. was now on the steady rise and turning to reach profits. As we know now, Netflix Inc. has become world wide with 25 million subscribers and is the leader in online rental and streaming industry.

Netflix Inc. shows a good example of entrepreneurship that rose from nothing to a leader in its industry. Hasting’s and Randolph’s new innovation allowed them to enter the market, but their idea faced many risks of not making it. In the end it became a large company in 5 years by innovating the home entertainment market.
sources:
Netflix

Netflix History

My classmate Angelina Li’s blog explains the trouble Volkswagen is facing. She explains the issues VW is having with becoming the world largest car company. VW is having trouble working in partnership with Suzuki. She also explains that VW is finding it difficult to take over Porches. But Angelina mentions VW’s plan on expanding its market of lorries though a cooperating with European maker, Scania.

Angelina thinks VW is in a tough place with Suzuki because they need Suzuki to help them goal of becoming largest car company. She also thinks entering a lorry market is a promising plane because VW will diversify itself in the car market

I completely agree with Angelina opinion. VW is making a great decision by entering the lorry market because they offering a new technology in a very competitive market. VW really needs to work out their issues with Suzuki if they want to become the largest car company. I think VW with reach its goal with working out its issues with Suzuki and capitalizing on working with Scania.

My classmate Sadie Morgan explains the tactics and Strategies Anheuser –Beusch InBev is planning bring Budweiser to Brazil trying to make Bud be more global. She explains that AB InBev has used many tactics, such as sponsoring concerts and hiring influential Brazilians in order to promote their beer. Budweiser also plans on sponsoring the World Cup in 2014. Sadie explains the risks bud could have entering the global market because many beer drinkers tend to stay local but AB InBev plans on differentiating itself from the local brewers.

Sadie thinks that it will take much effort and money to globalize Budweiser but with right steps Bud can become a popular drink worldwide. She states that the company needs to develop a good team of representatives from each country to find away to meet the needs of each countries target market. They also need to find a way to get brand recognition.

I completely agree with Sadie’s opinion that it will take much work to globalize Budweiser but with the correct team it will happen. I also think that there is a huge risk for Budweiser to invest in globalization because they already do so well in North America. I think Budweiser just needs to play its cards correctly to prosper in the world beer market.

reports a profit of 2.2 billion in the third quarter. The world’s largest drink manufacture profit is 9% more then the same quarter last year. The revenue grew to $12.3 billion, a 45% increase from last year. The increase in revenue is due to the increase of price in a coke and its purchase of North American Bottle companies. Globally, Coca-Cola’s sales rose by 5%.  Regionally it grew 5% in North America, 2% in Europe and 7% in China. The large rise in China was due the large investment coke invested in China. Coke invested another 4 billion in China recently.  Rising product prices has eaten at cokes profit, so they raised their sale price by 2% to cover the price. Coke is also investing more in India and South America where the market is drastically growing. Sales in India and South America out preformed Europe and North America combined.  Cokes plans to continue to invest in the drink market to continue to be the leader in the world drink market

If Coke continues to invest the growing markets of China, India and South America they will slowly take over the market, causing smaller companies to have trouble to succeed in the market that Coca-Cola has control of.

This shows us that Coke will continue to lead the drink market. Coke is already very liquid (ironic) with high profits. Coke will just continue to increase profits and assets as it expands. By investing in China, India, and South America Coke will only increase revuene in the long run. Not only will this increase its profits but it will increase its brand image by expanding its product to new places.Cokes financial accountants are finding ways to maximizes its profits in the long run by continuing to invest and expand. Coke is certainly on its way to taking over the market through the help of its financial accounting department and marketing.

Coca-Cola reports $2.2bn profit and 45% revenue jump

Coca-Cola to invest a further $4bn in China

Due to lower profits in the last quarter, Costco Wholesale Corporation will be raisin their annual membership fee by 10%. The increase cost in production of cotton, gas and food has cause a decrease in the profit. The raise in the membership fee was way over due. In the end of the last quarter, August 28, Costco’s net income was $478 million US, or about $1.08 a share. Analysts expected an average of $1.10 a share according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.  Experts say that the increase in member ship fee

will help increase the profits.

Costco plans to increase its annual fee from $50 to $55 for household and business membership. For executive members they will get an increase from $100 to $110. Out of the roughly 35 million Costco members the membership fee increase will only affect about 22 million roughly half of them are executive members. The membership fee increase shadows a similar move by BJ’s Wholesale Club Inc. This competitor rose its fees in January from $45 to $50 annually.

The increase in the membership fee might only increase shares by 20 to 25 cents in the next two years. The majority of the fee increase will be use to keep products priced at lower values.

Costco is using the tactic of raising membership prices to see if they can continues to meet there goals and strategy to offer low prices on bulk food. This tactic should help for the most part unless they loose too many customers.

Costco raises membership fees; profit misses view

, a Disney owned sports network, may be the most the popular cable channel watched in the United States, but as well it is one of the most costly for the consumers. It is watched by 99 percent of the cable consumers.It is the only cable channel that had 20 million viewers watching one channel at once.

The cable company may be in high demand, but has to pay a hefty amount to provide the sports for the viewers. ESPN just signed a 1.8 billion contract to the NFL to air Monday Night Football. This increase will be tolled on the viewer. Cable companies will be required to increase prices. These higher prices have cost cable companies many clients. Newer technology allows consumers to view live television (sports) online without the high cable bills.  ESPN is one of the major causes for the higher cable bills; cable companies say to pay for ESPN, it is about 20% of the cost. Disney also refuses to sell ESPN as a stand alone company because it would lose a large piece of its income.  The main worry with cable companies is that Disney will keep increasing the cost of ESPN because it is highly viewed and an expensive operation.

ESPN has the ability to charge these high prices because it has many Points of Difference (PoD) from the cable TV industry (eg-Monday Night Football). This allows ESPN to separate its self from the cable TV industry and create this strong brand image.The high cost of production causes a lower demand though . The loss of demand and increase in price has caused ESPN to loose costumers. This will  decrease the level of the current viewers price. ESPN should find a way to continue to entertain their costumers with low or average prices.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/cables-espn-dilemma-wildly-popularbut-costly-09292011_page_2.html 

Practically three years later, about 500 US banks still owe $19 billon in bail out money. Both nationally recognized banks and rural community banks are holding on to this tax money for two reasons: they need it or they are waiting for a stronger sock market. The government expects to gain about $20 billion in profit from the banks debt. Over the last few months only 10 banks have completely paid back their bailout funds, and about 160 have fallen behind on their dividend payments.  The longer banks continue to hold on paying back the government, the longer the taxpayers will less money coming from their investments (Protess, Ben. “Some Banks Hang On to Bailout Billions)

The banks are fighting with good business ethics to stay in trade. If the banks were completely virtuous they would not be holding on to the taxpayers money, they would be doing there best to pay back the government as quickly as they could. It is understandable that some banks cannot afford to reimbursement the government, but the banks that are waiting for “brighter days,” in the stock market, is unethical. Those banks are being selfish and are holding back from the government that was kind enough to loan them money.  Having trust from a client or support system is important in moral business ethics; here the banks are taking their time in to pay back their expenses. That should be something is completed as soon as possible.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/some-banks-hang-on-to-bailout-billions/?ref=business